Interocular Contrast Differences Research Articles

Collective plasticity of binocular interactions in the adult visual system

Binocular visual plasticity can be initiated via either bottom-up or top-down mechanisms, but it is unknown if these two forms of adult plasticity can be independently combined. In seven participants with normal binocular vision, sensory eye dominance was assessed using a binocular rivalry task, before and after a period of monocular deprivation and with and without selective attention directed towards one eye. On each trial, participants reported the dominant monocular target and the inter-ocular contrast difference between the stimuli was systematically altered to obtain estimates of ocular dominance. We found that both monocular light- and pattern-deprivation shifted dominance in favour of the deprived eye. However, this shift was completely counteracted if the non-deprived eye’s stimulus was selectively attended. These results reveal that shifts in ocular dominance, driven by bottom-up and top-down selection, appear to act independently to regulate the relative contrast gain between the two eyes.

Binocular luster elicited by isoluminant chromatic stimuli relies on mechanisms similar to those in the achromatic case.

The phenomenon of binocular luster can be evoked by simple dichoptic center-surround stimuli showing a luminance contrast difference between the eyes. Previous findings support the idea that this phenomenon is mediated by a low-level conflict mechanism that integrates the monocular signals from different types of contrast detector cells. Also, isoluminant stimuli with different chromatic contrasts between eyes can trigger sensations of luster. Here, we investigate whether the lustrous impression in such purely chromatic stimuli depends on interocular contrast differences and in particular on interocular contrast polarity pairings in a similar way as in the achromatic case. In our experiments, we measured the magnitude of the lustrous response using a series of isoluminant dichoptic center-ring-surround stimuli with varying ring width whose chromatic properties were varied along the red-green and blue-yellow cardinal directions. The trends in the data were very similar to those of our former study with achromatic stimuli, indicating similar mechanisms in both cases. The empirical luster data could also be predicted fairly well by a chromatic version of our interocular conflict model (with overall R2 values between 0.577 and 0.639), for which two different receptive field models were used, simulating the behavior of color-sensitive double-opponent cells in V1.

The Effect of Interocular Contrast Differences on the Appearance of Augmented Reality Imagery

Augmented reality (AR) devices seek to create compelling visual experiences that merge virtual imagery with the natural world. These devices often rely on wearable near-eye display systems that can optically overlay digital images to the left and right eyes of the user separately. Ideally, the two eyes should be shown images with minimal radiometric differences (e.g., the same overall luminance, contrast, and color in both eyes), but achieving this binocular equality can be challenging in wearable systems with stringent demands on weight and size. Basic vision research has shown that a spectrum of potentially detrimental perceptual effects can be elicited by imagery with radiometric differences between the eyes, but it is not clear whether and how these findings apply to the experience of modern AR devices. In this work, we first develop a testing paradigm for assessing multiple aspects of visual appearance at once, and characterize five key perceptual factors when participants viewed stimuli with interocular contrast differences. In a second experiment, we simulate optical see-through AR imagery using conventional desktop LCD monitors and use the same paradigm to evaluate the multi-faceted perceptual implications when the AR display luminance differs between the two eyes. We also include simulations of monocular AR systems (i.e., systems in which only one eye sees the displayed image). Our results suggest that interocular contrast differences can drive several potentially detrimental perceptual effects in binocular AR systems, such as binocular luster, rivalry, and spurious depth differences. In addition, monocular AR displays tend to have more artifacts than binocular displays with a large contrast difference in the two eyes. A better understanding of the range and likelihood of these perceptual phenomena can help inform design choices that support high-quality user experiences in AR.

Binocular Lustre: Does identification of interocular contrast difference require opposite (light-dark) contrasts in the two eyes?

Binocular Lustre: Does identification of interocular contrast difference require opposite (light-dark) contrasts in the two eyes?

Anisometropic Amblyopia: Interocular Contrast and Viewing Luminance Effects on Aniseikonia.

PurposeTo demonstrate an aniseikonia test for anisometropic amblyopia (ATAA) that uses variable viewing luminance at different interocular contrast levels.MethodsThe test consists of a direct size comparison task based on a computer. The subject is asked to adjust the size of a dichoptically dissociated paired square target. One square was always presented at 100% contrast to the amblyopic eye/nondominant eye, whereas its counterpart was presented to the fellow eye at six contrast levels. Measurements were performed at two luminance backgrounds: (1) a white square on a black background (WoB) and (2) a black square on a white background (BoW). To test the feasibility of this approach, 16 patients with anisometropic amblyopia and 23 normal controls were recruited.ResultsThe Aniseikonia Index (AI) calculated from the ATAA increased when the difference in the interocular contrast increased in both the patients with anisometropic amblyopia and controls under BoW and WoB conditions. The mean AI differed dramatically between the BoW and WoB conditions in patients with amblyopia but not in normal subjects.ConclusionsOur model predicted interocular differences in contrast to the measurement of aniseikonia. Execution of the AI in individuals with amblyopia should consider that their responses to different luminance viewing conditions could be asymmetric.Translational RelevanceThe ATAA has the potential to optimize optical correction for the management of aniseikonia in individuals with anisometropic amblyopia.

Interocular difference thresholds are mediated by binocular differencing, not summing, channels.

Patterns in the two eyes' views that are not identical in hue or contrast often elicit an impression of luster, providing a cue for discriminating them from perfectly matched patterns. Here we attempt to determine the mechanisms for detecting interocular differences in luminance contrast, in particular in relation to the possible contributions of binocular differencing and binocular summing channels. Test patterns were horizontally oriented multi-spatial-frequency luminance-grating patterns subject to variable amounts of interocular difference in grating phase, resulting in varying degrees of local interocular contrast difference. Two types of experiment were conducted. In the first, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged upward from zero (i.e., binocularly correlated) and a test pattern that contained a bigger interocular difference. In the second type of experiment, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged downward from a maximum (i.e., binocularly anticorrelated) and a test pattern that contained smaller interocular difference. The two types of task could be mediated by a binocular differencing and a binocular summing channel, respectively. However, we found that the results from both experiments were well described by a simpler model in which a single, linear binocular differencing channel is followed by a standard nonlinear transducer that is expansive for small signals but strongly compressive for large ones. Possible reasons for the lack of involvement of a binocular summing channel are discussed in the context of a model that incorporates the responses of both monocular and binocular channels.

Effect of Interocular Contrast Difference on Stereopsis in Observers With Sensory Eye Dominance.

PurposeWe investigated how sensory eye dominance (SED) affects stereopsis when the half-images of random-dot-stereo stimuli had different interocular contrast.MethodsWe measured crossed and uncrossed stereo disparity thresholds and reaction time to seeing random-dot-stereograms with variable interocular contrast differences (ICD), where ICD = (log10 [CLE] − log10 [CRE]) = −0.4, −0.2, 0, 0.2, or 0.4 log unit. The mean contrast of the stimuli, (log10 [CLE] + log10 [CRE])/2, remained constant at 1.2 log unit to ensure that the measured effect was solely due to ICD. We also measured SED using, respectively, dichoptic horizontal sine wave gratings with different phases (revealing SEDcombo) and dichoptic vertical and horizontal gratings (revealing SEDinhibition).ResultsBoth measures of SEDinhibition and SEDcombo revealed the observers had the same eye as dominant although the magnitudes differed. The observers had lower stereo thresholds and shorter stereo reaction time on stimuli with unequal interocular contrast when the non–sensory-dominant eye viewed the higher contrast half-image, suggesting a stimulus-compensating effect. We then estimated the ICD of random-dot-stereo half-images (compensating stimuli) that would lead to minimum stereo threshold (SEDstereo-threshold) and reaction time (SEDstereo-RT) based on the stereo performance and ICD relationship, and found that they were significantly smaller than SEDinhibition and SEDcombo.ConclusionsBy linking SEDinhibition and SEDcombo with the effect of ICD on stereopsis, we provided further support for the notion that the stimulus-compensating effect is mediated by the interocular inhibitory and interocular gain control mechanisms. Furthermore, the interocular contrast for SEDstereo-threshold and SEDstereo-RT can be potentially applied for improving stereopsis in individuals with SED.

Binocular vision and fixational eye movements.

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between binocular vision and fixation stability (FS). Across three experiments, we investigated (a) whether fixation was more stable during binocular versus monocular viewing across a range of stimulus contrasts in normal observers (n = 11), (b) whether binocular rivalry affected FS in normal observers (n = 14), and (c) whether FS was affected by interocular contrast differences in normal observers (n = 8) and patients with anisometropic amblyopia (n = 5). FS was quantified using global bivariate contour ellipse area, and microsaccades were detected using an unsupervised cluster-detection method. In normal observers, binocular viewing showed more stable fixation at all stimulus contrasts, and binocular rivalry did not affect FS. When interocular contrast was manipulated under dichoptic viewing conditions, normal observers exhibited less stable fixation for an eye that viewed 0% contrast (no fixation target). In anisometropic amblyopia, fixation was less stable in both eyes when the fellow eye viewed at 0% contrast. No effects were observed at other interocular contrast differences. Overall, binocular FS was impaired in both eyes in anisometropic amblyopia compared to normal observers. We conclude that binocular vision influences FS in normal observers but in an all-or-nothing fashion, whereby the presence or absence of a binocular target is important rather than the relative contrast of the targets in each eye. In anisometropic amblyopia, the fellow eye appears to control FS of both eyes under dichoptic viewing conditions.

Binocular treatment of amblyopia: from the laboratory to clinical trials

Over the last 10 years, numerous psychophysical studies have indicated that binocular mechanisms are structurally intact but functionally suppressed in amblyopia (1-8). Many of these studies have used a contrast balancing approach, whereby the contribution of each eye to binocular vision is equated or “balanced” by presenting higher contrast stimulus elements to the amblyopic eye than the fellow eye (6). Using this approach, the strength of suppression can be quantified by measuring the magnitude of interocular contrast difference required for normal binocular combination. When suppression strength has been correlated with other clinical measures, stronger suppression has been associated with worse stereoacuity and worse amblyopic eye visual acuity indicting a link between the monocular and binocular deficits in amblyopia (5,7).

Dichoptic Attentive Motion Tracking is Biased Toward the Nonamblyopic Eye in Strabismic Amblyopia.

To determine whether attention is biased toward the nonamblyopic eye under binocular viewing conditions in adults with anisometropic or strabismic amblyopia. We first determined whether attention could be allocated preferentially to one eye in visually normal observers performing a dichoptic attentive motion tracking task. We then assessed dichoptic attentive motion tracking in amblyopia. Participants performed a multiple-object tracking task under the following three viewing conditions: target dots to the dominant eye and distractor dots to the nondominant eye (DE condition), vice versa (NDE condition), or all dots to both eyes (binocular condition). Interocular attentional asymmetry scores were computed as the difference in accuracy between DE and NDE conditions. An interocular contrast difference favoring the amblyopic eye was used for all conditions to neutralize amblyopic eye suppression. To test for confounding effects of suppression, participants completed a separate dot enumeration task under dichoptic presentation conditions to obtain an interocular enumeration asymmetry score. Participants with normal vision demonstrated similar accuracy between the DE and NDE conditions and exhibited slightly impaired performance under dichoptic compared with binocular viewing conditions. Participants with strabismic/mixed amblyopia had significantly higher interocular attentional asymmetry than participants with normal vision or with anisometropic amblyopia, whereby attention was biased toward the nonamblyopic eye. The latter two groups did not exhibit a bias in interocular attention. No interocular asymmetries for the enumeration task were observed for any group. A nonamblyopic eye bias in the interocular allocation of attention may contribute to the binocular vision impairments caused by strabismic amblyopia.

Binocular contrast, stereopsis, and rivalry: Toward a dynamical synthesis

It is well known that small orientation differences between two monocular gratings fuse to generate a stereoscopic perception of tilt, while large differences trigger binocular rivalry. In addition, unequal monocular contrasts combine nonlinearly to generate binocular contrast. A nonlinear neural model is developed here to account for binocular contrast, fusion at small orientation differences, and rivalry at large differences. The model also accounts for hysteresis in the transition between fusion and rivalry. Finally, the model predicts that interocular contrast differences between fusible gratings will produce a reduced tilt percept, and experiments reported here support this. Key to the model is the presence of two classes of inhibitory interneurons: one operating on similar orientations to normalize interocular contrast (IN), and one operating across large orientation differences to generate rivalry (IR). Critically, the IN neurons switch off the IR neurons driven by the other eye, thus permitting fusion of binocular plaids.

Interocular contrast difference drives illusory 3D percept

Any processing delay between the two eyes can result in illusory 3D percepts for moving objects because of either changes in the pure disparities over time for disparity sensors or by changes to sensors that encode motion/disparity conjointly. This is demonstrated by viewing a fronto-parallel pendulum through a neutral density (ND) filter placed over one eye, resulting in the illusory 3D percept of the pendulum following an elliptical orbit in depth, the so-called Pulfrich phenomenon. Here we use a paradigm where a cylinder rotating in depth, defined by moving Gabor patches is presented at different interocular phases, generating strong to ambiguous depth percepts. This paradigm allows one to manipulate independently the contrast and the luminance of the patches to determine their influence on perceived motion-in-depth. Thus we show psychophysically that an interocular contrast difference can itself result in a similar illusory 3D percept of motion-in-depth. We argue that contrast, like luminance (ND filter) can modify the dynamics of visual neurons resulting in an interocular processing delay or an interocular velocity difference.

Disparity thresholds Dmin and Dmax both depend on interocular contrast difference

Disparity thresholds Dmin and Dmax both depend on interocular contrast difference

The effects of inter-ocular contrast differences on binocular rivalry in younger and older observers

The effects of inter-ocular contrast differences on binocular rivalry in younger and older observers

How the venetian blind percept emerges from the laminar cortical dynamics of 3D vision.

The 3D LAMINART model of 3D vision and figure-ground perception is used to explain and simulate a key example of the Venetian blind effect and to show how it is related to other well-known perceptual phenomena such as Panum's limiting case. The model proposes how lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and hierarchically organized laminar circuits in cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 interact to control processes of 3D boundary formation and surface filling-in that simulate many properties of 3D vision percepts, notably consciously seen surface percepts, which are predicted to arise when filled-in surface representations are integrated into surface-shroud resonances between visual and parietal cortex. Interactions between layers 4, 3B, and 2/3 in V1 and V2 carry out stereopsis and 3D boundary formation. Both binocular and monocular information combine to form 3D boundary and surface representations. Surface contour surface-to-boundary feedback from V2 thin stripes to V2 pale stripes combines computationally complementary boundary and surface formation properties, leading to a single consistent percept, while also eliminating redundant 3D boundaries, and triggering figure-ground perception. False binocular boundary matches are eliminated by Gestalt grouping properties during boundary formation. In particular, a disparity filter, which helps to solve the Correspondence Problem by eliminating false matches, is predicted to be realized as part of the boundary grouping process in layer 2/3 of cortical area V2. The model has been used to simulate the consciously seen 3D surface percepts in 18 psychophysical experiments. These percepts include the Venetian blind effect, Panum's limiting case, contrast variations of dichoptic masking and the correspondence problem, the effect of interocular contrast differences on stereoacuity, stereopsis with polarity-reversed stereograms, da Vinci stereopsis, and perceptual closure. These model mechanisms have also simulated properties of 3D neon color spreading, binocular rivalry, 3D Necker cube, and many examples of 3D figure-ground separation.

Stereopsis and 3D surface perception by spiking neurons in laminar cortical circuits: A method for converting neural rate models into spiking models

A laminar cortical model of stereopsis and 3D surface perception is developed and simulated. The model shows how spiking neurons that interact in hierarchically organized laminar circuits of the visual cortex can generate analog properties of 3D visual percepts. The model describes how monocular and binocular oriented filtering interact with later stages of 3D boundary formation and surface filling-in in the LGN and cortical areas V1, V2, and V4. It proposes how interactions between layers 4, 3B, and 2/3 in V1 and V2 contribute to stereopsis, and how binocular and monocular information combine to form 3D boundary and surface representations. The model suggests how surface-to-boundary feedback from V2 thin stripes to pale stripes helps to explain how computationally complementary boundary and surface formation properties lead to a single consistent percept, eliminate redundant 3D boundaries, and trigger figure-ground perception. The model also shows how false binocular boundary matches may be eliminated by Gestalt grouping properties. In particular, the disparity filter, which helps to solve the correspondence problem by eliminating false matches, is realized using inhibitory interneurons as part of the perceptual grouping process by horizontal connections in layer 2/3 of cortical area V2. The 3D sLAMINART model simulates 3D surface percepts that are consciously seen in 18 psychophysical experiments. These percepts include contrast variations of dichoptic masking and the correspondence problem, the effect of interocular contrast differences on stereoacuity, Panum's limiting case, the Venetian blind illusion, stereopsis with polarity-reversed stereograms, da Vinci stereopsis, and perceptual closure. The model hereby illustrates a general method of unlumping rate-based models that use the membrane equations of neurophysiology into models that use spiking neurons, and which may be embodied in VLSI chips that use spiking neurons to minimize heat production.

Effects of inter-ocular contrast difference and decorrelation noise on disparity discrimination

Effects of inter-ocular contrast difference and decorrelation noise on disparity discrimination

Review Paper: Human factors of stereo displays: An update

Abstract— This updated review paper provides a selected review of a number of important perceptual and human‐factors issues that arise when stereo displays are designed and used. This review and analysis draws heavily from the basic vision literature in order to help provide insight for future design solutions for stereo displays. Issues discussed include: (1) the basics of human stereopsis (horopter, binocular disparity, binocular rivalry); (2) low‐level factors (interocular cross talk, interocular differences in luminance and contrast, accommodation‐vergence mismatch, stereoanomaly); (3) contextual factors (spatio‐temporal frequency effects, distance scaling of disparity); and (4) a high‐level cognitive factor (high‐level cue conflict). In this updated review, significant new material has been added: (1) interocular luminance and contrast differences and their effect on stereo viewing; (2) more insightful discussion of accommodative‐vergence mismatch; (3) high‐level cognitive factor. Two topics in the earlier review (visual pathways; dark focus and dark vergence) have been deleted. The paper concludes with the presentation of several recommendations for the design of stereo displays.

Illusory contrast-induced shifts in binocular visual direction bias saccadic eye movements toward the perceived target position

The perceived binocular visual direction of a fused disparity stimulus with an interocular contrast difference is biased toward the direction signaled by the eye presented with the higher contrast image (J. S. Mansfield & G. E. Legge, 1996). Does the amplitude of binocular saccadic eye movements have a similar bias? We examined saccades to fused disparate Gabor patches with interocular contrast differences. The effect of these contrast differences on saccadic amplitudes was compared to the perceptual biases in binocular direction obtained in a vernier acuity task. Saccades to unequal contrast targets landed between the end points for equal contrast and monocular targets. For three of our eight subjects, the saccadic bias equaled the perceptual effect. For the other subjects, however, saccades were affected to a lesser extent. Three models for binocular combination were used to evaluate these responses: A maximum-likelihood model failed to predict our results, whereas a model with contrast-dependent weighting of direction estimates by two monocular channels and a gain control model of binocular contrast summation gave a better approximation to our data. Both models showed that for the perceptual system, the influence of the eye that was presented with the higher contrast image was more dominant in the binocular combination than expected from the stimulus contrast ratio. The oculomotor system, however, was close to following linear summation.

A laminar cortical model of stereopsis and 3D surface perception: closure and da Vinci stereopsis

A laminar cortical model of stereopsis and 3D surface perception is developed and simulated. The model describes how monocular and binocular oriented filtering interact with later stages of 3D boundary formation and surface filling-in in the LGN and cortical areas V1, V2, and V4. It proposes how interactions between layers 4, 3B, and 2/3 in V1 and V2 contribute to stereopsis, and how binocular and monocular information combine to form 3D boundary and surface representations. The model includes two main new developments: (1) It clarifies how surface-to-boundary feedback from V2 thin stripes to pale stripes helps to explain data about stereopsis. This feedback has previously been used to explain data about 3D figure-ground perception. (2) It proposes that the binocular false match problem is subsumed under the Gestalt grouping problem. In particular, the disparity filter, which helps to solve the correspondence problem by eliminating false matches, is realized using inhibitory interneurons as part of the perceptual grouping process by horizontal connections in layer 2/3 of cortical area V2. The enhanced model explains all the psychophysical data previously simulated by Grossberg and Howe (2003), such as contrast variations of dichoptic masking and the correspondence problem, the effect of interocular contrast differences on stereoacuity, Panum's limiting case, the Venetian blind illusion, stereopsis with polarity-reversed stereograms, and da Vinci stereopsis. It also explains psychophysical data about perceptual closure and variations of da Vinci stereopsis that previous models cannot yet explain.